Iverson was outscoring Barkley in slower-paced leagues, and has four scoring titles in the same timespan. Higher career ppg and totals points scored. Neither are lockdown defenders, but Iverson was a better defender, as evidenced by his two Big East DPOY honors from Georgetown, and his three steals titles, two of which came when he was leading the league in minutes, and was top-3 in scoring. He led his collegiate teams further, and is still the Hoyas all-time leading scorer. His '01 run beats anything Barkley ever did. He's led the league in scoring, steals, minutes, and top-5 in dimes all in the same 82 . Iverson and Jordan only 2 players to score at least 50 twice in same playoff series. Jordan, Wilt and Iverson only players with at least 3 50 point playoff games. Iverson most steals in a playoff game. Iverson 4 straight seasons Top 10 scoring and assists. Jordan and Iverson only players to lead the NBA in scoring and steals at least twice in the same season. Iverson and Jordan highest usage rate in a season Jordan 88 and Iverson 2001. Second highest ppg average in playoff history. He had better discipline, he had more skill, his will to win was unquestionably better. I love both, don't get me wrong, I just give the nod to Iverson for doing what he did, in a tougher era, while being just 5'11 or so, in a league which Barkley had it easier, remember they created the five-second b2tb rule because of Barkley. Someone'll bring up efficiency, but we already saw what he could do when handchecking was vanquished, 33-3-7.5 on 45% with two steals

I'm curious of what you mean about tougher era?

I don't think you meant the teams or competition factor because Barkley competed against tougher teams in his era than Iverson did in his. Plus, Barkley played PF, so he was a 6'6 undersize power forward going up against bigger guys and outrebounding them.

I don't think you meant the teams or competition factor because Barkley competed against tougher teams in his era than Iverson did in his. Plus, Barkley played PF, so he was a 6'6 undersize power forward going up against bigger guys and outrebounding them.

Ok, Barkley's peak was from 88-93. During those years, his competition was at least equal to the competition of Iverson's, probably better, so I concede that. I was referring to the pace, and how the rules were more favorable to big men, UpChuck. Iverson's prime coincided during the rugby-league era, with handchecking, and comparable talent league-wide, while giving up 6.5 inches at least. Iverson had it harder than Barkley, and still got his, so that for me gives him the tiny edge

I'd like to hear your take on why Moses and Dr. J are better than Iverson, 'cause personally I just don't see it.

I'm a big admirer of Iverson. I will never forget his legendary will to win. His will to win was as good as any player in history, and that includes Michael. AI was a scoring machine of the first order.

However, at the end of the day, it's about winning. That to me is purpose for creating stats, and having a great will, and that is TO WIN GAMES. AI won many games, and led the Sixers to the Finals, but it wasn't enough. Why?
Many factors, but some of them had to do with AI himself. As great as he was, he also suppressed his teammates abilities at times.

AI got teamed with Stackhouse, Kukoch, Robinson, Coleman, and maybe a few I forgot, but these scorers never had their best games with AI. None of these players will think they had their best years with AI. The game has a lot to do with making your teammates better, and AI sadly didn't always do that.

AI didn't always want to win "the right way", like Larry Brown would say. AI was selfish at times, and didn't play defense at an acceptable level during other times. It's not about assists or steals, which can be bogus stats, but it's about "gluing" the team together to make the whole better than the individual parts. This is where AI failed.

Iverson has no business being uttered in the same breath as Wilt and the Doctor. It's a joke to even put Iverson and his 28 shot attempts to average 31.5 points in the same sentence as legends like Wilt and Julius. Only some stupid ghetto trash kids would even think Iverson was better or even in the league of such legends.

Also LMFAO till a near heartache to listen to AudioOne's plethora of bullshit. Iverson was a ****ing terrible defensive player during his NBA career. He got all those steals because he had no respect for team defense and gambled to get that 1 or 2 steals a game. He was an absolutely atrocious team defender and team defense is what matters when you are playing 5 on 5. AudioOne shut the **** up and stop embarassing yourself with your buillshit.

Iverson has no business being uttered in the same breath as Wilt and the Doctor. It's a joke to even put Iverson and his 28 shot attempts to average 31.5 points in the same sentence as legends like Wilt and Julius. Only some stupid ghetto trash kids would even think Iverson was better or even in the league of such legends.

Also LMFAO till a near heartache to listen to AudioOne's plethora of bullshit. Iverson was a ****ing terrible defensive player during his NBA career. He got all those steals because he had no respect for team defense and gambled to get that 1 or 2 steals a game. He was an absolutely atrocious team defender and team defense is what matters when you are playing 5 on 5. AudioOne shut the **** up and stop embarassing yourself with your buillshit.

The ignorance, aggresive, and abrasiveness of this entry just showed you already have your mind made up, and have never seen any of these players play. Never said he was this All-NBA level defender, and yes, he did gamble in the lanes, but he surely wasn't horrible. For as much as he gambled, he was havoc in the lanes, and disrupted offenses, creating several offensive opportunites, and while he had trouble fighting through screens at times, he stayed in front of his assignment fairly well. The reality is that he's somewhere in-between how each of us envision him, but he surely wasn't horrible The amount of NBA players, let alone wings, that can play offense and defense at the same time, on a high level is extremely low, so I don't see the need to single out Iverson for it

I'm a big admirer of Iverson. I will never forget his legendary will to win. His will to win was as good as any player in history, and that includes Michael. AI was a scoring machine of the first order.

However, at the end of the day, it's about winning. That to me is purpose for creating stats, and having a great will, and that is TO WIN GAMES. AI won many games, and led the Sixers to the Finals, but it wasn't enough. Why?
Many factors, but some of them had to do with AI himself. As great as he was, he also suppressed his teammates abilities at times.

AI got teamed with Stackhouse, Kukoch, Robinson, Coleman, and maybe a few I forgot, but these scorers never had their best games with AI. None of these players will think they had their best years with AI. The game has a lot to do with making your teammates better, and AI sadly didn't always do that.

AI didn't always want to win "the right way", like Larry Brown would say. AI was selfish at times, and didn't play defense at an acceptable level during other times. It's not about assists or steals, which can be bogus stats, but it's about "gluing" the team together to make the whole better than the individual parts. This is where AI failed.

Allen wasn't perfect, he did have his imperfections, but really, a) I don't see how he's the better player, b) his teammate situation was worse than either of theirs, and most importantly c) I don't see how either of them had the better career, even with the rings, and 4 combined MVPs.

Julius Erving had questionable defense himself. He was an inferior scorer to Iverson, with this being the key facet, as this was each's calling cards the inferior passer. He shooting was streaky at best, didn't have much range. Erving never really made players around him better either, his leadership was questionable. Watching Dawkins just blow up on his watch was mind-boggling; he had NO impact on this young high-schooler, and quite frankly didn't seem to give two ****s about it.

And while Dr. J got his title, he has never led a team to the Finals, and consistlently failed with more talent, time and time again. He joints a great team that finished 2nd in their division the year prior, in '76, a team that has McGinnis, Collins, Cunningham, Carter, Mix. The clear-cut favorites, he loses to Portland in the Finals, a series he should've came through and won. Next year, loses to D.C. and gets played to a standstill by Larry Kenon ( who you may ask?) , and gets ousted again. From watching that team, he was not having any impact on his teammates WHATSOEVER. And this was supposed to be the league's best player??? Next year, same deal AGAIN, even WORSE, losing to that INFERIOR San Antonio team. The next few years are understandable, somewhat, although him blowing that 3-1 lead in '81 pissed me the **** off. We HAD game 6 if he hadn't choked that free throw, Game 7 has that past stolen in the waning seconds He finally wins the title, but the very next year gets WAXED by New Jersey? '85, Malone, Cheeks, Barkley, Jones, Cheeks, good enough team to contend, and lose to Boston, with an injured Bird.

They built around Erving TIME, and time again, and he ROUTINELY let us down. His impact was TREMENDOUS in the 70's; he revolutionized the game, and was the predecesor to Larry and Earvin "saving" the league, no frontin', but he never led a team anywhere. , Iverson taking that team to those Finals, and beating that Lakers dynasty single-handedly was more impressive than anything Erving ever did outside the ABA. I never saw the heart from Julius that I did from Iverson, the will to win, his inferior leadership.. I just can't put him above AI with all that being said.

Yeah, I don't think Wilt can really be considered a Sixers legend like Dr. J or Iverson can.

Iverson is my favorite player of all time but I think it goes Dr. J and then AI. Doc's Sixers teams were just too good and he was an MVP caliber player for too long for me to put AI over him. His reputation as one of the game's pioneers and statesmen just solidifies him in the top spot.

Now, the thread has been made by a troll, but my response is towards the others:
Wilt, hands down. "Longevity" may seem to harm him (3.5 seasons), but when someone manages to win 3 MVP's in a row, post 68+62 win seasons (68 in 81 games, btw), win a title by destroying the back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back champions, post cumulative averages of 28/24/7/58% FG, along with lots of records, then longevity accolades of others like "X has scored more total points" or "X has played in more all-star games" have to take a back seat, as long as no-one else has come close to the dominance mentioned before. Combine Moses'+Iverson's+Barkley's+Dr.J's single best individual seasons with the Sixers and their total value would still not match Wilt's 3.5 seasons - only Moses' 1983 would be on par.